Intrade and hedging your bets in life

The prediction market Intrade is a neat contribution to economics as well as everyday living. It offers odds on a variety of important world events occurring, and allows users to buy or sell "shares" in the occurrence of events (take a look at the site for details of how it functions).

If you're interested in knowing what the chance of some upcoming event is, go to Intrade and you can see what the market rates the odds as. It's better than listening to pundits because on Intrade, people are putting money where their collective mouths are.

The recall election of Governor Scott Walker is going on in Wisconsin as I type this. Ballots are yet to be counted and Intrade currently prices his chance of victory at 93.6%. I'm ignorant about the political climate in Wisconsin, but even so I can quickly see that it would be an extremely strange event for Walker to lose this recall.

There are more subtle benefits to be gained from Intrade besides just information. Mainstream economic models of consumer behavior predict that people want to equalize consumption across time; a stable income with minimal variance is most desirable. Another nice aspect of Intrade (although I suspect rarely taken advantage of) is smoothing consumption over time.

For people who are deeply concerned about the outcome of political events, this should be a great service.

For example: if you expect that a loss for Walker will cause fiscal crisis and collapse of civilization, you should bet against the possibility that he wins, so you'll have enough shotgun shells and canned beans to survive the oncoming apocalypse. If instead you think that Walker winning another term will bring about a neo-fascist corporate state and crush middle-class living standards, you should bet heavily that he wins so you can bribe your way out of the country. Either way, the option is there!

Realistically, few people likely think that the outcome of political contests will have such divergent results. If money was used to match political rhetoric, Intrade would have even more money and traffic flowing through than it does now (hopefully enough to keep the site open, unlike some past attempts at prediction markets).

Light bulbs and implied discount rates

What does your choice in light bulbs say about your attitude toward the future? In terms of discount rates, quite a lot.

An incandescent 60W bulb costs around 50 cents to buy, while a 15W CFL costs about $9. The government estimates that an incandescent bulb will cost $4.80 in electricity annually, while the CFL will cost $1.20 if used an equal amount.

Assuming a five year time span - roughly how long a CFL bulb is expected to last, and during which a new incandescent bulb will have to be purchased every year - if you just add up the costs, the incandescent will cost $12 more. Why would anyone buy an incandescent bulb? The answer is time preference.

Plugging the numbers above into Excel and using "Goal Seek" finds an implied discount rate of 39%. That is, someone would have to value one dollar a year from now 39 cents less than a dollar today in order to be indifferent between an incandescent and CFL light bulb.

People discount the future when making decisions, and the discount rate is not always consistent between all activities. Few people would want to pay a 39% rate on a credit card, but some are willing to do the equivalent when the cost is on the electric bill instead of the credit report.

There are a number of other potential explanations: maybe some renters don't expect to stay a full five years or have electricity included with the rent; some consumers might be cash-constrained and can't afford the pricey bulbs; or there could be some cognitive bias or plain lack of information about electricity costs. But, given the plenitude of "green" or energy conservation campaigns and general worry about global warming, behavioral factors might also push in the other direction.

If varying discount rates are distributed throughout the population, there may be enough people in the "tail" - with extremely high discount rates - to keep incandescent bulbs on the shelves for some time to come.

Paper books are a depreciating asset

...at least for a grad student.

Why? Any time I move, I have to pay to transport them. Shipping fees aren't cheap, plus packing and carrying books is a lot of work. Given that I will definitely be leaving Fairfax after graduating (cost of living is too high to stay permanently) and will likely end up moving several times after that before settling down, that's a lot of money and effort that might go into lugging paper around with me.

At first, I was hesitant about e-books. The feel of a good book in the hands is hard to replace. But, a Kindle (or other e-reader) with a cheap cover is a decent imitation, and a lot more convenient. The only real downside is inability to re-sell the book when I'm done reading.

Basically, it's time to go digital.

My new policy is to only buy paper books when (a) there's a chance I might be able to sell it later for a decent amount of cash, as is the case with a textbook or (b) the paper copy is much, much cheaper than the electronic version.

It'll be a few years before I'm moving again, but there's no time like the present to start downsizing (just don't take me out of context on that line). Right now I have around a hundred books and several years worth of National Geographic magazine. It's a paltry collection compared to some of my professors, but still more than the average person needs.

The punchline: if you want any of my books, I'll sell them cheap. Check out My Bookcase and make an offer. Even if it's low, I won't be insulted - cover the cost of shipping plus a little bit more and I'm satisfied. If you're already settled in and won't be moving soon, or don't find hauling paper to be as much of a hassle as me, then an exchange can make us both happy!

Do higher tax rates spur more charity? I doubt it.

A few days ago I was talking with my mother about the state of the economy, income inequality, and social obligations... Typical evening conversation on any New Years, I'm sure. From life experience and observations on a (privileged) extended family, her opinion was that more charity occurred when tax rates were higher. I disagreed, and offered to present a mathematical demonstration on why that was the case. After that effort, I wanted to show the Internets the fruits of my labor.

Charitable giving is a very personal decision and the tax law surrounding it is complicated and arcane, so I start with some simplifying assumptions to make the problem more approachable. These are:

• Money given to charity is 100% tax-deductible.
• Each person lives for two periods, then dies, and their entire stock of wealth is donated after death.
• An individual's money earns 10% interest.
• To make the problem concrete, I'll imagine a person earning $100,000 in each period, and two different tax regimes: one with a 0% tax rate, and another with 50%. 

Now a quick exercise in arithmetic, starting with a tax rate of 50%. The individual earns $100,000 in the first period, $50,000 of which would go to the government. Instead that $50,000 is given to charity to avoid taxes. At the start of period two, they earn $5,000 in interest and another $50,000 in after-tax income, then die and donate all of it. Total charity given is $205,000.

Now imagine a tax rate of 0% (and if you're a libertarian, try not to faint with excitement). An individual earns $100,000 and keeps all of it, earns $10,000 in interest before the second period, makes another $100,000 then dies and gives all of it away. Total charity given is $210,000.

One could argue that this result emerges just from the assumptions made, which is partially true. However, as long as individuals can earn a higher return on investment than the government (which is not a controversial claim) and all money is transferred upon death (a de facto necessity) then the result, qualitatively, will still be the same. If you make the example more realistic, and envision a person making money then saving and investing it for more than just two years, the difference between the two tax rates becomes even more apparent.

Of course, someone might say there are distributional issues this exercise neglects. Maybe needy recipients of charity are more sympathetic than the undeserving heirs of some wealthy person. Aside from that, the general point still stands: when government takes money through taxes, the overall social "pie" becomes smaller. When individuals can invest it, they put money into productive activities which can generate more wealth, making the "pie" bigger. Even if higher tax rates drive some people to give more money to charity than they otherwise would, society in the aggregate is better off if that money can be productively invested by individuals instead. Charity is then a pleasant side-benefit of greater social wealth.

My 13-bean inflation hedge.

Never mind gold or TIPS. There are much more mundane ways to protect your purchasing power from inflation. Durable food commodities work just fine. I recently invested in 75 lbs. of 13-bean soup mix, purchased from The Great American Spice Company.

Beans: the grad student's investment vehicle.

Assuming that core commodity inflation continues at its current pace (almost guaranteed) and that these beans last the several years it will take me to consume them (less certain), I think it's a nearly foolproof investment. Other methods of hedging against inflation carry their own risks and are also much more expensive. Bulk food purchases are the chickenhearted investor's best friend, as Andrew Tobias has put it.

Now, any suggestions on bean soup recipes?

Followup (2/4/2012): I'm not quite as excited about the beans as I used to be. The problem with a bean mix is that some types of beans cook faster than others... and the gastrointestinal consequences of under-cooked beans are obvious to anyone who's suffered through them. If I were doing this over again, I would have gotten a bulk order of one type of beans and saved some money and hassle. Oh well - live and learn.

How to Gain Twitter-Fame for Penny Stock Advice, with no Skill, Knowledge (or Profits) Required.

Along with upcoming rappers, Bieber fans, and ad-bots there’s a rash of penny stock advice to be found on Twitter. At first I dismissed it as one of many eccentricities of the platform, but after seeing a few dozen assorted “penny stock” accounts I started to wonder. What could explain these accounts peddling advice on securities that most investors wouldn’t line a litter-box with?

So-called "penny stocks" may range in cost from a few dollars to a fraction of a cent. For example, instead of buying one share of IBM at $164.68, it would be possible to instead purchase 4,450 shares of Double Eagle Gold Holdings (DEGH) at $.037 per share (amusingly, both stocks are currently near their respective peak historical values). DEGH had been running at an average price of about $.003 for most of the last year. If an investor had a crystal ball and could foresee this recent ten-fold run up in price, there would have been a lot of money to be made; therein lies the temptation of penny stocks.

Of course, anyone who actually had that crystal ball and put it to use in the market would be far too rich to bother with running a Twitter account. So why are there hundreds of penny stock tweeters out there? To explain, here is a theory of how ANYONE can appear blessed with penny stock clairvoyance.


The Five-Step Guide to Achieving Twitter-fame with Penny Stock Advice:

Step 1: Pick out 100 penny stocks at random, and buy $10 worth in each of them for a total cost of $1,000 plus brokerage fees (or, if you’re cheap, just consistently follow the prices of 100 penny stocks).

Step 2: Wait. As is normal for inexpensive and highly volatile stocks, the price of some will go up dramatically and others down equally dramatically.

Step 3: Ignore the stocks that go down. Out of the 100, by random chance you’re almost assured to see one go up every now and then. Get on Twitter and brag about how well your picks in the stocks that went up are going.

Step 4: Construct self-promotional statistics to describe how well an investor could have done if they had known exactly when these volatile stocks would move up and down, then tweet about anyone can generate “POTENTIAL 237% PROFITS!!!” based on your expert advice.

Step 5: Bask in fame and adulation. If you are lucky, people will buy a subscription to your newsletter. Or, if they follow your advice, it will drive up the price of penny stocks you own. Then sell off the penny stocks that went up due to your “wisdom” and leave your followers to eat the losses as the stock shifts back down. 


I can’t verify that every penny stock tweeter uses this self-serving strategy. However, it’s the only way I can think of making money off penny stocks, so I’d guess that a large ratio of those Twitter accounts have something like this in mind.

In the time it took me to write the above, DEGH – which I noticed as a result of a penny stock tweet – has dropped 35%. IBM, on the other hand, changed 0.30% in that hour. In a nutshell, this is why investing in penny stocks is probably not a good idea: you get all the risk of stock market speculation without much stake in any real value (or else why is the stock so cheap?). Markets tend to be efficient and integrate available information into stock prices, so when a stock costs a fraction of a cent, it’s probably because many people rate its investment value somewhere near a lottery ticket.

The DEGH rollercoaster, courtesy of Google Finance. Notice the peak, then sudden drop at the end.

To make matters even worse, even if you successfully buy low and sell high with penny stocks – a difficult proposition, given how quickly the values change – you’ll be eaten alive in brokerage fees. For the example above, even if one used a discount brokerage like Scottrade, the cost of each purchase would be a $7 flat fee – making a $1,000 investment cost a total of $1,700. It would take a crystal ball, extraordinary luck, or loads of self-serving information delivered to a mass audience in order to generate enough returns to cover that cost. When you see someone giving investment advice on Twitter, mentally ask which of those three categories you think they fall into.



Note: for entertainment purposes only. I’m not dispensing investment advice; the stocks named were solely for example purposes, not as endorsement. If you’re reading this and run a penny stock service I’m sure you’re the exception to the above, and love children, flowers, kittens and your advisees all equally and would never pull such a scam on them. I’m just writing about your competition. But I would awfully like to peak at your crystal ball sometime when you get a chance.